[It's time for another Monthly Musing -- the monthly community blog theme that provides readers with a chance to get their articles and discussions printed on the frontpage. -- CTZ]
Throughout my life I have always held myself to a very extreme standard of perfection. That is to say that in most areas of life, though I have been moderately successful, I have failed by my own standards. I have most actively applied this standard to my gaming habits. I have always enjoyed difficult games, one of the first games I ever played and hold many fond memories of is Mega Man X for the SNES, a game that I could not complete until many years later. From that point on I have struggled through some of the hardest games I could get my hands on, and always played games on the hardest setting first. I've rarely allowed myself to truly enjoy a single-player experience; I instead prefer to toil through it for the reward and bragging rights of completing something considered to be very challenging.
About six months ago I discovered the indie game, I Wanna Be The Guy while I was pushing my way through Ninja Gaiden II. It is considered by the few who have tried it to be the “world's hardest game.” According to the forums for the game, a mere 421 people have completed it, on any difficulty. The game revolves around memorization, and extremely precise, fast movements. There are deathtraps lurking everywhere and split-second or better reflexes required. When I downloaded the game and spent hours on the first few frames, I thought to myself, “This could be the crowning achievement of my gaming career”, if I can do this, then I could surely beat and master any other game.
Thus far I have died an estimated two thousand times and logged over one hundred infuriating hours. I know that really isn't a lot for some hardcore gamers, but it was so hard to bring myself to play this game. Days went by where I would be trying to perfectly time a jump, or smash my keyboard to shoot something as fast as possible. For days I would be stuck on the same single frame. Days turned into weeks. It was brutal, but I was progressing. I watched others complete the game on Youtube, and even the creator, who had made all the sudden deathtraps had difficulty going through it.
For months, I would see the apple shaped shortcut on my desktop, sitting there, taunting me, saying, “Come play with me! I miss you! You'll get it this time!”, like a siren, except I knew the rocks were there, I knew my vessel (my sanity) would be reduced to splinters if I double clicked. But I did, over and over again I did, until she slowly changed my mental state to pure self-hatred and thoughts of self-implosion. Playing this “game” had transformed into masochism. She was reducing me to a madness; I had to make the nightmares of landing on spikes and falling moons stop. Slowly and painfully, I weaned myself from playing. However, the shortcut is still there, like one of the thousands of deathtraps within her, she is lying in wait.
I got to a point in the game that “Kayin”, the sadistic creator of the game, referred to as “one of the hardest, if not the hardest part” before I gave up. I just couldn't take it anymore. It was an excruciating uphill struggle that I had to let go. Maybe I will return to it one day, but for now I will have to settle for being average, a quitter, a terrible shell of a person who once again, failed. I may never feel that final cathartic feeling of completing the most difficult game ever, but at least I tried. I got further than thousands of others, and maybe I will defeat her one day. In a way though, it has changed my life outlook. I realize that there are the few, the elite up there that spend their time doing only their craft, and they are undoubtedly the best. My life wasn't meant to revolve around being the best at one thing, but rather, decent at a number of things.
I understand my life is not a complete failure, despite my best keyboard smashing efforts; I am a student pursuing my dream of becoming a game designer. I am happy most of the time and have a loving girlfriend. I can have fun with some multi-player games, and enjoy some select single-player experiences, but as I've matured, I've started to analyze my playing experience. I'm thinking now that a lot of modern titles aren't really worth my time, when I figure more time is spent on shotgun physics than dialogue and emergent properties. Sure, it's awesome to see a head 'asplode into a million amorphous pieces, but after thirteen years of the same old crap, I think it's time for a change.
I've rationalized since my younger years that I play games on the hardest setting because that is how the designers truly intended for people to experience their product. The easier settings are for those who are new to gaming, or maybe just aren't good a particular genre. The point is most modern games are the same, the experiences only differ in specific type of violent content. Yes I am contributing to the rising argument in art vs. games, but I don't want to argue, I want to make a difference. I've started to pay much more attention to videogames as I play them since I've decided to become a game designer.
The same way that a sculptor experiences the hyper-realistic work of contemporary artist Ron Mueck, I experience a videogame. By having the dexterity to play through and complete a game, I appreciate and understand the design and aesthetic elements the designers had in mind. I believe that someone who has studied a specific medium of art has can much better interpret and enjoy a piece of art than a casual observer. In a way, I enjoy games more because of my squandered youth behind a glowing screen. To someone who doesn't play, most videogames really don't seem that deep, but to gamers, and someone like me, understanding and appreciation come easy.
The extreme difficulty of I Wanna Be The Guy is not a flaw, but rather a strength. The game is designed well and was a lot of fun with its recycling of favorite bosses and themes from many other videogames. Yes, most people won't have the patience or dexterity to make it past the first few frames, but those who do have a deep and wonderful reward for their hard work and effort. I enjoyed the game for how far I got and although my patience and sanity may never return to the fine-aptitude I once had, I may someday return to play this tormenting temptress. To the 400-something gamers that did beat her, congratulations you crack-using spiders. There is no way any human being could beat that game. But I'll keep trying ... maybe.
Contest:
5:00 PM on 08.16.2009
| 
Great article by the way, much deserving of the front page.
I've beaten it (only on Hard mode though). A clarification, though. I'm not a crack using spider per se. I'm merely a guy who was bitten by a radioactive spider that happened to have crack trapped in its hairs (long story).
A question, though. Were you trying to play it on Impossible difficulty (the hardest difficulty)? If you did that and emerged with your sanity, wow...
Also, the ghosts and goblins bit? Absolute insanity. It counted for at least half of my deaths in the game.
The only difference between the difficulty modes is the distance between the Save Points, right? I should just try it again on the easiest mode.
I also passed the game on wuss mode...ill never forget the long hours spent on getting to the tower of the guy...seriously i fucking hate that dragon from megaman.
Also the ending sucks balls if you dont move left....you know what i mean.
IWBTG is actually a really fun game as well, in my opinion.
If you've been watching the corporate crime reports in business news or the month after moth cascading systemic collapse of the country's economy, it seems endemic that keeping your job without having to commit crimes for your corporate boss is exceptionally difficult.
Paying for and going to grad school - that is punishment enough.
Games that are a sadistic slog - do not somehow make you a "better" person - not even a better virtual person.
I've been playing 'Eden' for months on the 'easy setting', getting frustrated and quitting. I really am not a very coordinated or skilled gamer. I freely admit - I sit in one place and shoot from cover in 'killzone 2' because I don't have reflexes enough to survive otherwise. So be it.
But not for a moment do I think 'eye hand co-ordination' games somehow confirm or define the worth of any person. It would be demeaning and dehumanizing - a simple and clear example of immorality to judge others (or to view one's self) in such a way.
Not to be crude or disrespectful in any way, but here is a rather face value ridiculous and obvious assertion. The humanist in me says - the scores Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr., Rousseau, Goethe, and Noam Chomsky would get at 'donkey kong' are in no way correlated to the social value and worth of studying their philosophy and writings.
Games are just supposed to be mentally stimulating. A diversionary rest. Fantasy play. That we have the luxury of participating in them is worth noting and acknowledging. The social construct of 'leisure time' in fact did not exist for the vast majority of Europe for example, until the 'The Great Enlightenment'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
It is an example of the logical error of 'transference' to assume that an individual who has 1 positive attribute, then must have 'only' positive attributes.
(a common example being- 'physical beauty = virtue')
Personally I would say defense of universal human rights, democracy, and poor/ill/elderly might be associated with being good people. And likewise I would suggest the question about 'how well does the Buddha do at Ms. Pac Man?' is kind of irrelevant.
Game skills say little about a person's character. While displaying vulgar self obsessed vanity, bragging, immodesty, and delighting in grieving others who just aren't worshiping you enough for your '1 positive attribute' does go quite a way in revealing one's character.
In some sense we play games in order to fantasize about leading a more perfect life. And that is a normal and healthy attempt at diversion.
I for one prefer to think that the moments we fail to act kindly towards other living beings is the only true loss we can have, and the only score worth keeping.
ps.
To the author- congrats on a well written article.
And to all of those in the comments who have claimed to have beaten the game on any difficulty, I salute you. The only way I could beat that game is with a blunt object.
Yet, I love the game. Every time I died in a new, unexpected way, I'd laugh and enjoy it. Yes, I got frustrated, but I didn't mind because it was meant to be frustrating. I rank it up there with Braid and World of Goo as one of my favourite indie games.
Oh, and the most evil part was the laser stage in the Megaman area.
I too like to beat games on the hardest difficulty, and I'm beginning to understand the amount of thought required for a truly amazing game. I love Valve's Dev Commentary options, as I am blown away by all the thought, work, and research that goes behind even the smallest things. Sharper angled windows in a L4D map to have a psychological effect on the player? I could never consciously look at windows and think "heh, those put me on edge". Things like that have gotten me interested in game design too.
I've periodically taken breaks from IWBTG, but I can't resist it. It just feels so damn rewarding to get to the next save point, or to beat a boss. When I was fighting the Megaman Dragon boss, I was freaking the hell out when I had to jump back to the main platform. My heartrate increased, I felt numb, I was completely focused on the game... nothing else has ever had that effect on me even in my childhood.
I love the selection of music and the choices of characters in the game as well, I need to get the theme song of The Guy's castle...
@ readbigwordsisgood:
Time to get unecessarily wordy! (Prepare for tl;dr) I think you're not understanding the point here. Some people play games to feel good or take a break, and for some people how good they are at games is a defining trait. People are tall or short, skinny or fat, black or white. For some, these are just a part of them and they don't care, for others, it is something that defines who they are. You can replace gaming with anything: painting, sprinting, charisma, hand-eye coordination, creativity, etc.
Games can be whatever you want them to be, just like books, movies, music, etc. You aren't "suppose to" go to movies for a laugh, maybe you want something thought provoking, something scary, something that makes you cry? You sound preachy right now and I don't know if you intend to.
And yeah, there's always that "There's starving kids in Africa" angle you can pull when trying to coax people into feeling bad about caring about games as more than a "leisure activity" when there was no such luxury X many years ago, but why? Especially here, on a gaming website? About gaming? Gaming?
(Or maybe, like anything, when used right, aspects of bad design can be used to create... good design? :D)
To the author -- as the creator of the game, I was deeply amused by this article. I find it an honor that people will soak 100+ hours into my game. That tops pretty much any RPG out there! I laughed a good deal while reading through this and I hope you find success in game design in the future.
Sidenote: I do think the games difficulty is a bit exaggerated! It's certainly very hard, but I think the number of people who've beaten it is extremely understated. The game is hard, but most people can get by it with time and effort. Even if guinness says it may be the hardest game ever made, plenty of people have still beaten it. How many of us have beaten battletoads?
(Also at over a million downloads, I think 400+ people beating the game is an understatement)
I heard that you locked children in a small room with some of the older systems and the ultra-hard games when you designed this. The parts that made them cry are the ones found in your game! Unless my sources are wrong.
@Vava:
Congrats on the FP dude!
I wonder if anyone will make an article about Takeshi's Challenge? It's a game made by a guy who hates videogames (Press the 'A' button 20,000 times to win one challenge).
It took me 5 hrs 3 mins and 1893 deaths to beat IWBTG on normal mode. Then it took me 37 mins and 14 deaths to beat it again on hard. Then 41.50 and 36 deaths to beat it on very hard.
I admit people who just slog away at games will find it very difficult, but I don't think this is true for people who can naturally pick up a game and be good at it after an hour or two. It sounds like you are the former. Of course this game DOES kill you a few 100 times with just random traps which are impossible to know about unless you've looked up a walkthrough, but I like that. It means you have to beat it with skill (beating the same screen multiple times) and not just luckily doing a screen once.
In your post you talk about always doing games on the hardest mode and preferring to slog your way through them, though I notice you are playing IWBTG on normal mode? Not that I blame you, but it's a bit of a contradiction.